This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Red Bull won't be without an engine deal for 2019, they have links with Aston Martin and Honda.

Just a quick thought on Haas I am surprised that no blue-chip American company have come forward to sponsor them, I like to see them do well.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.

Agree for their current situation anyway,absolutely.

I can remember the rumours about them dangling software packages to Williams and more often than not Lotus in 2012/13 to make them more competitive at certain times to take more points off Ferrari and McLaren though.

Not quite the same thing but just meaning I don't think they'd be much different if in another situation.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Red Bull won't be without an engine deal for 2019, they have links with Aston Martin and Honda.

Just a quick thought on Haas I am surprised that no blue-chip American company have come forward to sponsor them, I like to see them do well.

Aston Martin don't have an engine. If they can do a deal with Honda all good, but will Honda want them? They have just had a hassle with Mclaren and have seen the events with Renault, including Renault v STR so may tread carefully around committing themselves to RedBull. Indeed, Red Bull may not want Honda.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.

They threaten to pull out and it seriously effects almost a third of the grid. Look at the extra power Having STR got Red Bull. Bernie bribed them to leave FOTA. With two teams the result of a pull out is more severe so the threat has to be taken more seriously.

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Yeah it would be in their best interest not to supply more teams. Didn’t see it that way. I was seeing it from an alternate world, where they might offer 4 teams Ferrari Engines, 4 teams Alfa Engines and 4 teams Maserati Engines* and have a monopoly on votes etc. But yeah, that would mean that they’re building 24 Engines from the same place, which would be a nightmare.